The following is based partially on a Dow Jones story written by Erik Baard:

U.S. GRANTS PATENT ON HYDROGEN ENERGY SOURCE Source:  New York (Dow Jones)

Brigid Quinn, replying to Park for the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, said, "We do not give patents on perpetual motion machines.  That this patent was granted means it met the criteria that it is new, useful, and non-obvious, and fully disclosed as to how it works."

Perhaps, she could have added that her department did not have a patent office employee placed to deny patents in this technical category as has been done for an estimated 300 patents in the category where patent applications for cold fusion inventions are handled.

Dr. Robert Park is well know among the new-energy community for his valiant efforts to destroy the credibility of any new-energy developments that might threaten the flow of funds into the hot-fusion community.  Therefore, if he is distressed, it must be a worthy new-energy discovery.

Mills explains that his process creates high-temperature gases (plasmas) without the use of large amounts of heat, microwave energy, or electricity.

The hot plasma will be a source of energy to drive turbines and provide thermal energy for other useful purposes.  As an example Mills states the further development of a plasma-to-electricity system may be capable of providing a 5 Kw home unit for under $2,000.

The recent high prices paid for shares in companies producing fuel cells may suffer due to the potential competition from this new hydrogen-collapsing energy development.  This announcement will most certainly provide intense interest in the IPO planned for Mills company later this year.

This writer has been stating for many months that the most important part of Mills' discovery is the production of new forms of hydrogen (Mills' hydrinos).  A vast array of new chemical compounds is likely to be developed from this new type of chemistry.  A new and important chemical industry is expected to develop.

From a scientific view, the impact of Mills discovery will cause

a dramatic re-evaluation of the long-supported and strongly-defended mainstream quantum theory.  This, of course, is an unacceptable concept to folks like Dr. Robert Park, who is a highly-vocal defendant of the current paradigms in Physics.

What will be the impact on the rest of the new-energy world?  That is a question that only events will answer.  However, it will be interesting to see if the patent office continues to prevent cold-fusion inventors from being able to protect their intellectual property.  The impact from the proven, and well-funded new-energy developments from BlackLight Power, Inc. are a much greater threat to the continued funding of hot fusion projects than the perceived threat from cold fusion devices.

This special news release was prepared by Hal Fox, for New Energy News, the newsletter for members of the Institute of New Energy.

---

Tom Bearden comments:

This is an unprecedented bit of good news from Hal Fox, inclosing the article by Erik Baard.  With 499 claims recognized by the Patent Office, the Mills invention becomes a great "Pioneering" patent, which is fully justified since Mills pioneered the entire field.

It is significant that Mills demonstrated under independent tests the results that he claimed.  The scientific method USED to be that, if the experiment refutes the theory, the theory must be changed.  As one can see, that is no longer the case, and many scientists are far more dogmatic than the old medieval Aristotelian metaphysical system that scientists struggled for 300 years to get out from under.  So they will defend a falsified theoretical model to the death.  In short, they would throw away the experiment and retain the theory.  And that is dogma, not science.    

When you think of it, what is so unbelievable in having an energy density (potential) state below the ground state (the ground potential level?"  For decades particle physics has used the fact that such negative energy states do exist, e.g., the Dirac sea of negative energy states, usually considered filled with Dirac electrons.  We know you can lift electrons out of there by adding energy; that has long been established.    

Well, classical electrodynamics already assumes (and widely uses) the fact that one is free to regauge the potentials (change the energy density of the system) at will, freely!  Electrodynamicists already do that, particularly in applying the Lorentz symmetrical regauging.  There they do it twice, and very carefully so that the two are 'equal and opposite' so that you get no excess net force with which you could do free work.    

So what mighty commandment says that one cannot have just a single asymmetrical regauging?  Since Lorentz, everyone already assumes you can have such, anytime you wish.  So what "law" forces us to always seek and use two equal and opposite regaugings?  What fool seeking useful energy from the vacuum potential, would use TWO self-defeating free energy changes? Obviously, if you wish the vacuum to GIVE you something for free, you must use only ONE regauging, which will a priori be asymmetrical.  Then you get a free energy-density change in the local vacuum, and you can certainly get a "potential state" that is below the ground level potential state.  That is just making a negative potential, and that is just performing a selected asymmetrical regauging of the system.    

Apparently Mills has done precisely that.  The hydrogen atom and its parts do not care what energy state the local vacuum is in.  If you externally regauge that state, and put it below the normal "ground state" potential level, then certainly the hydrogen atom and its proton and electron will react and change!    

Okay, so we haven't ever used that before in conventional science.  So what! One is only asking whether or not it is permissible.  And the answer is, it's permissible in spades, and implicitly contained in experimentally established regaugings already used and known.  So it becomes just a matter of finding out "how to do it and how to do it well".  That's where the creative inventor comes in.  Apparently that is just what Mills found out how to do.    

Even so, since he did it in 1989, he has been 11 years getting his patent granted.  And he had to prove the results all the way.  Which he did.    

Any scientist worth his salt should be delighted that Mills has found how to do something new in science, and therefore advanced the field.  That is what science is supposed to be all about!    

Many closed-minded arch skeptics seem unaware that the Heaviside-Maxwell equations, prior to arbitrary symmetrical regauging by first Lorenz and then H.A. Lorentz, do indeed include open electrodynamic systems far from equilibrium in their vacuum energy exchange.  But these critics seem to have only classical equilibrium thermodynamics in their minds, with its second law, and of course that does not even apply to open dissipative systems. Someone should explain to such strident critics why Prigogine was awarded a Nobel Prize.  However, Lorentz's arbitrary symmetrical regauging gave them just exactly what they wish.  It discards all those permissible overunity Maxwellian systems, and retains only those which are forcibly in equilibrium with their active environment.  Once in equilibrium, then classical thermodynamics DOES apply, as does that old second law, and that system will never exceed COP = 1,0.    

Interestingly, every power system our engineers and scientists have ever built, has been designed and built in accord with the Lorentz-regauged subset of Maxwell-Heaviside theory.  NEVER with the full theory, and NEVER with asymmetrical self-regauging and thus a violation of the Lorentz condition.    

Finally, let us return the skeptics' own stuff back to them.  The classical EM they so staunchly defend, after Lorentz's arbitrary symmetrical regauging, has simply discarded that entire vast subset of permissible Maxwellian systems that are open dissipative systems and therefore permitted to (1) self-organize, (2) self-oscillate or self-rotate, (3) power themselves and their loads (all the energy is just received from the active vacuum environment), and (4) exhibit negentropy.  The Lorentz regauged CEM retains only those systems which HAVE BUILT INTO THE PHYSICAL SYSTEM ITSELF TWO EQUAL AND OPPOSITE ASYMMETRICAL SELF-REGAUGINGS, SO THAT THE SYSTEMS DELIBERATELY IMPLEMENT TWO "LORENTZ DEMONS" TO FORCIBLY REGAUGE THEMSELVES SYMMETRICALLY AND THEREFORE FORCIBLY MAINTAIN THEMSELVES IN EQUILIBRIUM IN THEIR VACUUM EXCHANGE.    

In short, all power systems to date have been built so that they themselves forcibly keelhaul themselves continuously into equilibrium with their active external environment.  Little wonder that none of them exhibits COP > 1.0!    

Now let us turn to the "cherished" old CEM so loved by the skeptics.  CEM is well-known to be riddled with foundations errors, limiting assumptions, and non sequiturs -- see Wheeler, Feynman, Bunge, Margenau, Barrett, Cornille, Evans, Vigier, Lehnert, etc.  Since CEM omits the active vacuum exchange, then it is faced squarely with its totally unresolved problem of the "source charge".  Implicitly CEM considers that the source charge CREATES all that energy it pours out across the universe in its fields and potentials, in fact altering the entire vacuum potential of the universe.  Well, that violates the most sacrosanct law of all: energy can neither be created nor destroyed.    

So if anyone is going to point fingers and cry "perpetual motion nuts", let him point the first finger at himself.  At least we overunity researchers know we must have open dissipative systems far from thermodynamic equilibrium.  But in our wildest nightmares, we could never dream of the vast array of perpetual motion machines already assumed by classical CEM and its elimination of the vacuum energy exchange.    

One can in fact show that every electrical load ever powered, has always been powered by energy extracted from the vacuum, NOT by the energy we input to the shaft of a generator or the chemical energy in a battery.  We have adequately addressed that in full elsewhere.    

In case the critic thinks the "scalar" potential is a scalar entity, he should be introduced to Whittaker 1903.  For nearly a century it has been rigorously shown that the "scalar" potential is not a scalar entity at all, but is a harmonic set of bidirectional EM longitudinal wavepairs.  It is composed of a vast set of multiple wave energy flows, in both directions (radially out from the source charge, and radially back into it).  We can also replace fields and waves with two scalar potential functions, since Whittaker in 1904 showed that any EM field or wave -- any whatsoever -- is just two such dynamic scalar potentials with dynamics functions imposed.  So everything in the classical EM text anyway is comprised of sets of bidirectional EM longitudinal wavepairs, with imposed dynamics.  Everything is comprised of dynamic sets of internal longitudinal EM energy flows.  A whirlpool in a river may appear completely static, but inside it is highly dynamic, with water constantly flowing through it.  So is a "static" potential or field.    

So the electrodynamics that the skeptics are so certain of, already implicitly describes every charge in the universe as a PERPETUAL MOTION MACHINE OF THE WORST KIND, CREATING ENERGY RIGHT OUT OF NOTHING.    

Even worse, as a residue of the old material ether assumed by Maxwell (and still in the equations; nary an equation was ever changed after the material ether concept was falsified), CEM then "defines" a potential as its own reaction cross section with a unit point static charge, and "defines" a field as its own reaction with a unit point static charge.  Well, that is a gross non sequitur because it totally confuses the cause (the EM entity prior to interaction) as the effect (the small EM entity diverged after interaction).  In fact, not a single CEM textbook or paper in the Western world shows the form in which an EM wave exists in space, prior to interaction.  All illustrations are of the E-H effect wave in matter after interaction, not the Et-Ht impulse wave that exists in spacetime prior to interaction.

What a way to run a railroad!    

When the arch skeptics explain how the source charge produces those fields and potentials and their energy, WITHOUT interaction with the vacuum and WITHOUT broken symmetry in that interaction (which two things have been known and experimentally proven in particle physics for more than four decades), then one should consider listening to them, AND NOT BEFORE.  When they correct the "definitions" of field and potential, and use the field and potential themselves rather than the reaction cross sections of each of them at a point, then one can believe they may understand EM energy flow.  But not till then.    

Anyway, slowly the experimentalists are showing that the old EM theory is not finished yet, and electrodynamics is still very much an embryonic science that is still developing, with a long way to go.    

Mills put one solidly on the scoreboard, and that is simply delightful.  For once the "good guys" won one.    

I'm reminded of the same kind of pontificators who blasted the very notion of an amorphous semiconductor.  They thundered that every fool knew that a semiconductor had to be crystalline.  They crucified Ovshinsky, calling him every kind of charlatan and scoundrel.  Then one day they suddenly woke up to find that Ovshinsky had put his amorphous semiconductor into Xerox copy machines, under contract, and they were working just fine, thank you!  Not too long after that, students began doing Ph.D. theses in amorphous semiconductors.  So how many of the ardent critics then apologized to Ovshinsky?  Not a one.    

You can tell a true scientist from a dogmatist easily.  When the scientist makes an error, he admits it straightforwardly and corrects it.  When the dogmatist makes an error, you never hear a peep from him, only more of the same, just louder.    

Understand, everyone needs a friendly skeptic, to keep him honest and point out his errors.  Such a scientist friend is one of the most valuable friends one can have.  But one sometimes cannot help feeling harshly toward "scientists" of strongly bigoted ilk.  In the long run they delay, harangue, and suppress far more innovative science than they allow down the pike.  As a result, science often requires 40 to 100 years to do what can be done in four years in the proper environment, with funding and the proper team.  The literature is full of vivid examples, as every historian of science knows well.  Even Max Planck, at the time the most prestigious scientist in the world, pointed out wryly that one finally gets a new science not by sweet reason, but by the old diehards who so bitterly oppose it finally dying off and getting out of the way.    

In the overunity EM systems area, it has often appeared that we would indeed have to wait until the "diehards" died away.  We've had more than our share of them.    

Now maybe, just maybe, an end run around them has been accomplished -- at least in one new area where they had failed to set up their usual strong suppression routine.    

The energy problems of the entire earth can be solved in four years, anytime the organized scientific community will permit it and fund it.   But at least the good guys finally won one.  Let's hope it is the first of many wins yet to come.